Nuremberg Days 194-195 (1946) Baron Friedrich von Eberstein Direct Dr. Horst Pelckmann 

it is availeble

Who cares. Everybody knew the verdict had already been decided before the trial.

99% of Germans were before and after the war Christians. The rest were jews or non religious.

@@livewallberg Did they now?

It was just a custom at that time, if somewhat meaningless.

For Germans it is the first opportunity since 1946 to learn about the poor performance of the court in detail. The indifference and ignorance is stunning.

The summary of his testimony is that he joint the SS in 1928 and became SS Leader (Obergruppenführer) in 1933 in Thüringen, Sachsen and parts of prussia. By that time the task of this organization was the protection of public events of the nsdap under the command of the SA. He led 15.000 men and claimed that he forbade the SS men under his orders the participation in the boycott of Jewish business in 1933. He denied any involvement in the planing or execution of the final solution and described what has been done as eternal shame for the german people.

@@Atze7811 True, however if there are subtitles in english, the rest of the world will also learn the shortcomings

@@Atze7811 Thank you

Hello Dear, You have a point. Obviously it was "forgotten" by the Nuremberg court leadership and the "Sound Recording Service" to also make the recordings of the spoken translations which the judges and other English speaking staff were hearing in their headphones. (Not to forget that the English spoken by the court staff to the german lawyers and accused, was translated simultaneously by special staff and also not recorded as such sound tracks). This is indeed a serious flaw. Considering the historical importance of the event it is inappropriate to have missed the opportunity to have every spoken word which was most essential part of the proceedings to be recorded and archived as a sound track. Not only as a document for the English speakers including historians but also as prime evidence required to double check that the synchronised translations were actually accurate! We may doubt that these translations were always done correctly. In one way or the other! This would lead to misunderstandings and wrong conclusions including inaccurate replies. Of course the court stenographers put most of the proceeding in writing. But none of this can be considered safe evidence for the spoken translations which the judges heard in their headphones, neither what the accused was hearing in his. Basically the information transmitted through the electrical devices to the accused by means of headphones evades all control. The invisible translator acting in between the judge and the accused could theoretically even change the wording of questions and answers in a way to influence and deviate the case without anybody noticing it.